← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/4476/2007closed no costs

Pallem Lakshumma And Another v. Spl. Dy. Collector (L.A.) And Another

2017-11-27Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi3 pages

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.4476 OF 2007 Date 27.11.2017 Between:

Pallem Lakshumma and another.

... Petitioners AND Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit-II, Telugu Ganga Project, Podalakuru, Kadapa District and another. ......Respondents

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.4476 of 2007 ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents to pay the decretal amount awarded in A.S.No.1191 of 2003 dated 17.03.2006.

Facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that the Government issued notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), for acquisition of structures of Malinenipatnam Village, Atlur Mandal, for the purpose of Somasila Project, that award was passed on 14.11.1997 awarding compensation of Rs.11,78,650/- and that the petitioners received compensation under protest. Petitioners filed L.A.O.P.No.837 of 2000, under Section 18 of the Act, before the learned District Judge, Kadapa and the learned Judge, by order dated 03.05.2002, enhanced the compensation. Questioning enhancement of compensation, respondents filed A.S.No.1191 of 2003. By order dated 17.03.2006, this Court, modified enhancement of compensation from 100% to 80% of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Questioning the inaction of respondents in paying the amount awarded in A.S.No.1191 of 2003 dated 17.03.2006, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Collector (L.A.), G.N.S.S., Kadapa on 23.03.2007 duly calculating interest on 30% and 12% additional market value, that the said amounts were deposited on 31.03.2007 from out of the budget allotted under Charged Head by Chief Engineer, Srikalahasti on 29.03.2007 and that the decretal charges has been deposited in compliance with the orders of this Court in A.S.No.1191 of 2003 dated 17.03.2006.

In view of the categorical statement made in the counter affidavit, and as the counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Dt:27.11.2017 usd